No, do not divide the country in half.

I would choose a blue state

I would choose a red state.

New Member

With the ever growing divide in this country between conservatives and liberals we're hardly the United States of America anymore. Maybe we need to become the United States of Conservative America and the United States of Socialist America.

Visualize whirled peas

With the ever growing divide in this country between conservatives and liberals we're hardly the United States of America anymore. Maybe we need to become the United States of Conservative America and the United States of Socialist America.

Board Mommy

Well-Known Member

Just make NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Philly, Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, New Orleans, Austin, Houston, Boulder, Denver, Baltimore, Newark, and a few other cities blue, the rest of the country red, should be a pretty even split. we can wall all those places in and let them eat themselves. I don't want to insult the rest of the states those cities are located in by making the entire state blue just because ofa majority of citizens in those welfare palaces. The rest of the country would just prosper.

New Member

Just make NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Philly, Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, New Orleans, Austin, Houston, Boulder, Denver, Baltimore, Newark, and a few other cities blue, the rest of the country red, should be a pretty even split. we can wall all those places in and let them eat themselves. I don't want to insult the rest of the states those cities are located in by making the entire state blue just because ofa majority of citizens in those welfare palaces. The rest of the country would just prosper.

You might want to actually look at the income distribution and concentrations of economic prosperity in this country.

Other than TX, which has wealth based on past oil riches, you might be surprised to find out that your precious red states lag. In fact, by almost any economic factor you want to use, deep red states tend to be concentrated at the bottom of the scale.

This has very little to do with red vs blue, although most on here seem incapable of judging anything about this country by any other parameter. Educational attainment is a much better general indicator of wealth attainment than political affiliation.

Board Mommy

You might want to actually look at the income distribution and concentrations of economic prosperity in this country.

Other than TX, which has wealth based on past oil riches, you might be surprised to find out that your precious red states lag. In fact, by almost any economic factor you want to use, deep red states tend to be concentrated at the bottom of the scale.

This has very little to do with red vs blue, although most on here seem incapable of judging anything about this country by any other parameter. Educational attainment is a much better general indicator of wealth attainment than political affiliation.

In recent years, governors have generally divided into two competing camps, which we call the “red state model” and the “blue state model,” raising the stakes in this interstate competition.

The conservative red state model is predicated on low tax rates, right-to-work laws, light regulation, and pro-energy development policies.

The blue states have doubled down on policies that include high levels of government spending, high income tax rates on the rich, generous welfare benefits, forced-union requirements, super-minimum-wage laws, and restrictions on oil and gas drilling.

This would be an interesting subject if anyone actually wants to discuss it logically and factually. As in, red states decide to secede...then what happens? Does the US government let them go without a fight? Or do we have a civil war? My guess is civil war. So then what happens?

The problem is that there aren't really any blue "states" - there are states that are basically red with a major urban area that skews them blue. So how does that work?

In recent years, governors have generally divided into two competing camps, which we call the “red state model” and the “blue state model,” raising the stakes in this interstate competition.

The conservative red state model is predicated on low tax rates, right-to-work laws, light regulation, and pro-energy development policies.

The blue states have doubled down on policies that include high levels of government spending, high income tax rates on the rich, generous welfare benefits, forced-union requirements, super-minimum-wage laws, and restrictions on oil and gas drilling.

This would be an interesting subject if anyone actually wants to discuss it logically and factually. As in, red states decide to secede...then what happens? Does the US government let them go without a fight? Or do we have a civil war? My guess is civil war. So then what happens?

The problem is that there aren't really any blue "states" - there are states that are basically red with a major urban area that skews them blue. So how does that work?

And the poverty angle usually is closely linked to the demographics of the region. Most of the Deep South is poor - but it also has the highest African American population in the country. Mississippi is a state typically "red", but it is the poorest, and has the highest black population by percent.

You can't just divide the states by red versus blue - as Vrai observed, it's typically blue urban centers. When they're very large, they dominate the state. When they're not so large, they don't.

New Member

Are you asking me what on earth makes me think the blue states would fail?

Blue states would run up huge deficits to pay for all of their social economic programs (they're doing just that now) and all the manufacturers would move production to the red states where non-union labor is more affordable and the tax environment is friendlier. More of the population would be provided with jobs which also means more tax payers and more revenue for the state. The link Vrai provided does a very good job of showing us exactly that with Boeing being a great example.

My poll was meant to get people thinking about what each parties policies would do in a state or country where only that parties policy was allowed to exist. Another words what would life be like in a place where a leader (I use that word lightly here) such as Obama be like if he were able to implement every policy he wanted to? Same as if lets say a Mitt Romney was allowed to rule and implement all of his policies. I truly believe there would be a lot of former staunch blue folks running to the red states for a job and a better way of life.

Strung Out

Are you asking me what on earth makes me think the blue states would fail?

Blue states would run up huge deficits to pay for all of their social economic programs (they're doing just that now) and all the manufacturers would move production to the red states where non-union labor is more affordable and the tax environment is friendlier. More of the population would be provided with jobs which also means more tax payers and more revenue for the state. The link Vrai provided does a very good job of showing us exactly that with Boeing being a great example.

My poll was meant to get people thinking about what each parties policies would do in a state or country where only that parties policy was allowed to exist. Another words what would life be like in a place where a leader (I use that word lightly here) such as Obama be like if he were able to implement every policy he wanted to? Same as if lets say a Mitt Romney was allowed to rule and implement all of his policies. I truly believe there would be a lot of former staunch blue folks running to the red states for a job and a better way of life.

Well, what happened was the 'blue' states, the Union, used a flood of immigrant labor and manufacturing capacity to swamp the 'red' states who, through arrogance and obstinance chose confrontation instead of finding a way to avoid conflict and lost everything.

As for the contention that red states would be some sort of utopia, you know anyone who lives in Texas? They have their own issues with taxes and it certainly isn't drowning in business rushing to get there and, additionally, it does a lot of gummint business. Your red/blue argument is far to black and white and doesn't hold up historically or currently.

New Member

Well, what happened was the 'blue' states, the Union, used a flood of immigrant labor and manufacturing capacity to swamp the 'red' states who, through arrogance and obstinance chose confrontation instead of finding a way to avoid conflict and lost everything.

As for the contention that red states would be some sort of utopia, you know anyone who lives in Texas? They have their own issues with taxes and it certainly isn't drowning in business rushing to get there and, additionally, it does a lot of gummint business. Your red/blue argument is far to black and white and doesn't hold up historically or currently.

Forget the first civil war. The second one will have much greater consequences and it will be as simple as black and white. The conservative states will be the states that end up prospering. The principles of the Democratic party are by their very design destined for failure. You can only spend money until you run out of money and once all the folks who actually want jobs move to the side of the country that can provide jobs the Blue side will be left with nothing but free loaders, gay's, illegal immigrants and terrorists. The only reason why blue works anywhere right now is because there is enough red to offset the devastating effects of the lefts taxes and re-distribution of wealth system. You take the red away and they're done!

Strung Out

Forget the first civil war. The second one will have much greater consequences and it will be as simple as black and white. The conservative states will be the states that end up prospering. The principles of the Democratic party are by their very design destined for failure. You can only spend money until you run out of money and once all the folks who actually want jobs move to the side of the country that can provide jobs the Blue side will be left with nothing but free loaders, gay's, illegal immigrants and terrorists. The only reason why blue works anywhere right now is because there is enough red to offset the devastating effects of the lefts taxes and re-distribution of wealth system. You take the red away and they're done!

Ok, understanding this was just for fun, if you're on the right track, how come the existing red states haven't achieved what you're suggesting they will?

Secondly, as a simple exercise in economics, what do you suppose happens to all those dollars spent in blue states? They just disappear? No, they get spent. They flow through the economy. And, conversely, what happens to those same dollars NOT being spent in red states?

It seems you're applying a gold standard, family value style of economic thought whereby money is real and has specific value as opposed to what we have, a fiat economy, where money is simply what we agree it is.

You honestly think there are no productive gay people? That gay is synonymous with 'free loader' or 'terrorist' and 'illegal immigrant'? Do you have any idea who all those illegals work for? And how 'red' they are? Do you have the first clue where many a 'red' business sells it's products and services?

Many of them do. Many red states have low un-employment, affordable cost of living and the states are doing very well fiscally speaking. They would prosper even more if there wasn't any Blue opposition getting in the way but currently there is no such thing as an entirely "red" state as most of the large cities are still very liberal and lean blue.

Secondly, as a simple exercise in economics, what do you suppose happens to all those dollars spent in blue states? They just disappear? No, they get spent. They flow through the economy. And, conversely, what happens to those same dollars NOT being spent in red states?

Sure the money gets filtered back to the government when it's spent but the government never gets a real return on that money, in other words it's a deficit amount and is no different then you going to the bank every month taking out a loan and then using the money you borrowed to pay back the loan. It's mathematically impossible. Your debt would just continue to grow until eventually you don't even have enough money to cover the interest on your debt.

You honestly think there are no productive gay people? That gay is synonymous with 'free loader' or 'terrorist' and 'illegal immigrant'? Do you have any idea who all those illegals work for? And how 'red' they are? Do you have the first clue where many a 'red' business sells it's products and services?

Of course there are productive gay people. My comment on them was geared more towards my personal views on things like gay marriage and the erosion of traditional family values. In the blue states it would be "anything goes" and I believe that also has a negative effect on society as a whole. In the red states illegals would really be legal because we wouldn't allow illegals to dwell among us and mooch off of the economy. Now you can argue that they provide a service most Americans aren't willing to provide but I disagree with that philosophy. Stop hiring hem and they wouldn't have any reason to be here. Get ride of all the BS unions and open those jobs up to Americans. Pay them the minimum wage and with more people working, more tax revenue we could afford the higher price at the super market.

New Member

It seems you're applying a gold standard, family value style of economic thought whereby money is real and has specific value as opposed to what we have, a fiat economy, where money is simply what we agree it is.

Sorry I missed one. It is real money, our deficit is real and we pay real interest on that money to the countries who own our debt. The deficit does hurt us and there is no reasonable argument anyone could make that would convince me to be okay with running on huge deficits. We either have the tax revenue to cover the cost of our government or we don't plain and simple. Jobs from private companies employing private citizens who pay taxes is the only way to achieve this. Bigger govy, more spending, more money filtered to the poor so they can shop at Walmart offers no real fiscal benefit to the federal/state governments.

Routinely Derailed

We've already experienced a divided nation, back in the 1800s. It didn't work out too well. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Oh...well...that DOES seem to be the case... :shrug: